DOCSLIB.ORG

Piedmont Hydroelectric Project, Upper Pelzer Hydroelectric Project, Lower

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Piedmont Hydroelectric Project, Upper Pelzer Hydroelectric Project, Lower DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR HYDROPOWER LICENSES Piedmont Hydroelectric Project, P-2428-007 Upper Pelzer Hydroelectric Project, P-10254-026 Lower Pelzer Hydroelectric Project, P-10253-032 South Carolina Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing 888 First Street, NE Washington, D.C. 20426 July 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................... v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS.......................................................................... vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 1.1 APPLICATIONS .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 PURPOSE OF ACTION AND NEED FOR POWER ......................................... 4 1.2.1 Purpose of Action ............................................................................................. 4 1.2.2 Need for Power ................................................................................................. 5 1.3 STATUTORY AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ................................ 5 1.3.1 Federal Power Act ............................................................................................ 5 1.3.2 Clean Water Act ............................................................................................... 6 1.3.3 Endangered Species Act ................................................................................... 7 1.3.4 Coastal Zone Management Act ........................................................................ 9 1.3.5 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................... 9 1.4 PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT .............................................................. 10 1.4.1 Scoping ....................................................................................................... 10 1.4.2 Interventions ................................................................................................... 10 1.4.3 Comments on the Application ........................................................................ 10 2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ................................................... 11 2.1 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................... 11 2.1.1 Current Project Facilities ................................................................................ 11 2.1.2 Project Safety .................................................................................................. 20 2.1.3 Current Project Operations ............................................................................. 20 2.1.4 Current Environmental Measures ................................................................... 25 2.2 APPLICANTS’ PROPOSALS ........................................................................... 29 2.2.1 Proposed Project Facilities ............................................................................. 29 2.2.2 Proposed Project Operation ............................................................................ 29 2.2.3 Proposed Environmental Measures ................................................................ 30 2.2.4 Proposed Modifications to Project Boundary ................................................ 33 2.3 MODIFICATIONS TO APPLICANTS’ PROPOSALS – MANDATORY CONDITIONS .................................................................................................... 34 2.4 STAFF ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................... 34 2.5 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 37 2.5.1 Issuing a Non-power License ......................................................................... 37 2.5.2 Federal Government Takeover of the Projects ............................................... 38 2.5.3 Retiring the Projects ....................................................................................... 38 i 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................... 40 3.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE RIVER BASIN ..................................... 40 3.2 SCOPE OF CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS ....................................... 43 3.2.1 Geographic Scope ........................................................................................... 43 3.2.2 Temporal Scope .............................................................................................. 44 3.3 PROPOSED ACTION AND ACTION ALTERNATIVES ............................... 44 3.3.1 Geological and Soil Resources ....................................................................... 44 3.3.2 Aquatic Resources .......................................................................................... 54 3.3.3 Terrestrial Resources ...................................................................................... 93 3.3.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................ 122 3.3.5 Recreation and Land Use.............................................................................. 133 3.3.6 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 144 3.4 NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE ....................................................................... 149 4.0 DEVELOPMENTAL ANALYSIS ...................................................................... 150 4.1 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE PIEDMONT PROJECT .. 150 4.1.1 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................... 151 4.1.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................................. 152 4.1.3 Aquenergy’s Proposal .................................................................................. 152 4.1.4 Staff Alternative ........................................................................................... 152 4.1.5 Cost of Environmental Measures ................................................................. 153 4.2 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE UPPER PELZER PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 161 4.2.1 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................... 162 4.2.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................................. 162 4.2.3 Co-applicants’ Proposal................................................................................ 162 4.2.4 Staff Alternative ........................................................................................... 163 4.2.5 Cost of Environmental Measures ................................................................. 163 4.3 POWER AND ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE LOWER PELZER PROJECT ......................................................................................................... 171 4.3.1 Comparison of Alternatives .......................................................................... 172 4.3.2 No Action Alternative .................................................................................. 172 4.3.3 Co-applicants’ Proposal................................................................................ 172 4.3.4 Staff Alternative ........................................................................................... 173 4.3.5 Cost of Environmental Measures ................................................................. 173 5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................. 180 5.1 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT AND RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE .............................................................................................. 180 5.1.1 Piedmont Project .......................................................................................... 180 5.1.2 Upper Pelzer Project ..................................................................................... 187 5.1.3 Lower Pelzer Project .................................................................................... 194 5.2 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS ........................................................ 202 ii 5.3 SUMMARY OF SECTION 10(j) RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 203 5.4 CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ................................... 206 6.0 FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ...................................................... 207 7.0 LITERATURE CITED ......................................................................................... 208 8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ........................................................................................ 216 Appendix A ...................................................................................................................... 217 Appendix B ...................................................................................................................... 218 Appendix C ...................................................................................................................... 219 iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. General location of the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Storm Tide Hindcasts for Hurricane Hugo: Into an Estuarine and Riverine System
    ADVANCES IN HYDRO-SCIENCE AND –ENGINEERING, VOLUME VI 1 STORM TIDE HINDCASTS FOR HURRICANE HUGO: INTO AN ESTUARINE AND RIVERINE SYSTEM Scott C. Hagen1, Daniel Dietsche2, and Yuji Funakoshi3 ABSTRACT This paper presents simulated storm tides from a hindcast of Hurricane Hugo (1989). Water surface elevations are obtained from computations performed with the hydrodynamic ADCIRC-2DDI numerical code. Four different two-dimensional finite element domains are developed in order to assess the surge-tide-streamflow interaction within an estuarine and riverine system. Two domains include inland topography, i.e., several observed inundated areas along the coast and relevant riverine floodplains. Results at three locations are presented; at Charleston harbor, where Hugo made landfall, Bulls Bay, where the highest water elevations were observed, and at the inlet of the Winyah Bay estuary, the mouth of the Waccamaw river. The simulated results show good agreement with the recorded storm data and the observed high water elevations. A slight phasing error is recognized. Our numerical results reveal that including inundated areas and floodplains in our finite element mesh is of vital importance in order to represent the storm tide response best along the coast reach of interest and within the Waccamaw riverine systems. 1. INTRODUCTION Hurricanes remain the single costliest and most devastating of all storms. Most of the catastrophe results from storm surge produced during these events. In recent years, the unprecedented destruction by several hurricanes along the South Carolina coast highlights the importance of developing a capability to model the interaction between storm surge, atmospheric tide, and streamflow. Advanced numerical models, like ADCIRC, are capable of enhancing the understanding of hydrodynamic behavior along coastal areas during such storm events.
    [Show full text]
  • A Water Quality Trading Framework for the Reedy River
    A WATER QUALITY TRADING FRAMEWORK FOR THE REEDY RIVER Gregory Michael Mikota II AUTHORS: Reedy River Watershed Policy Director Strom Thurmond Institute of Government & Public Affairs Perimeter Road Clemson, SC 29634-0125 REFERENCE: Proceedings of the 2008 South Carolina Water Resources Conference, held October 14-15, 2008, at the Charleston Area Event Center Abstract. The Reedy River flows through a relatively quality trading can provide greater flexibility and the small watershed that is rapidly experiencing growth. The potential to achieve levels of environmental benefits that watershed is approximately 167,000 acres, but the upper would not otherwise be attained under a traditional portions of the river include the urban areas of the City of command and control approach. When working with Greenville, Mauldin, and Simpsonville within Greenville non-point source pollution problems, the USEPA is County, South Carolina. The lower portions of the river required to work with individual states and local agencies flow through Laurens County as the Reedy joins the because of the provisions defined in the revision of the Saluda River to form Lake Greenwood. As the Clean Water Act in 1987. population and the economy of the Reedy River From a state and local level further analysis is needed Watershed continue to expand, the demand on this river in order to asses the applicability of creating a water resource will continue to increase. quality trading program for the Reedy River Watershed. For a number of years the Reedy River has been under This proposed paper will provide a conceptual increasing pressure from various sources. Point source framework for how a water quality trading program may and non-point source effluent loads have increased be established within this watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality
    3. Existing Conditions and WaterEnvironmental Quality Consequences 3.6 Water Quality 3.6.1 CHANGES TO THIS CHAPTER SINCE THE DEIS Since the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) the acreage of water resources in the project area have been updated to reflect the design changes resulting in the Refined Recommended Preferred Alternative (RPA); impacts resulting from the Refined RPA; and reflect the impacts to impervious and pervious surface areas of the Refined RPA. 3.6.2 HOW IS WATER QUALITY ASSESSED? The Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972 requires that each state set water quality standards for all contaminants in surface waters. These standards are typically based on criteria recommended by the US Environmental In South Carolina, the SCDHEC Protection Agency (USEPA). The CWA also regulates the discharge of is responsible for monitoring pollutants into our state’s waters. In South Carolina, the USEPA has and regulating water quality delegated the responsibility of monitoring and regulating water quality for the USEPA. to the Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC). Many factors can affect water quality, including pesticides, heavy metals, livestock waste, litter, oils and grease, and other chemicals. Water from rain and runoff collect these pollutants and carry them into creeks and rivers. Natural resources and processes can also affect water quality. The amount of tree cover over streams and rivers can affect the temperature of the water, thereby affecting the habitat for other plants, fish, and insects. Additionally, sediment from erosion can wash downstream and impact the depth and important substrate within the stream. Existing Conditions and Environmental Consequences Water Quality FEIS May 2019 Page 3-237 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina Thomas M
    University of South Carolina Scholar Commons Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Research Manuscript Series Institute of 8-1972 Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina Thomas M. Ryan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books Part of the Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Ryan, Thomas M., "Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina" (1972). Research Manuscript Series. 33. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/33 This Book is brought to you by the Archaeology and Anthropology, South Carolina Institute of at Scholar Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Research Manuscript Series by an authorized administrator of Scholar Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Archeological Survey of the Columbia Zoological Park, Richland and Lexington Counties, South Carolina Keywords Indians of North America, Richland County, Lexington County, Columbia Zoological Park, South Carolina, Archeology Disciplines Anthropology Publisher The outhS Carolina Institute of Archeology and Anthropology--University of South Carolina Comments In USC online Library catalog at: http://www.sc.edu/library/ This book is available at Scholar Commons: https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/archanth_books/33 ARCHEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE COLUMBIA ZOOLOGICAL PARK, RICHLAND AND LEXINGTON COUNTIES, SOUTH CAROLINA by Thomas M. Ryan Research Manuscript Series, No. 37 Prepared by the INSTITUTE OF ARCHEOLOGY AND ANTHROP0LOGY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AUGUST 1972 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION. •..••• 1 METHOD OF INVESTIGATION • 3 NATURAL SETTING • 6 HISTORIC SITES. .. ... ..... 14 SALUDA CANAL (38RD59) •• ........ 14 History of the Saluda Canal • 14 Excavations •••••• 18 SALUDA RIVER BRIDGE (38RD58) .. 25 SALUDA FACTORY • 28 PREHISTORIC SITES •• 32 SABLE SITE (38RD60) •• 34 Sable Site Ceramics • 37 Chronological Position.
    [Show full text]
  • The Historic South Carolina Floods of October 1–5, 2015
    Service Assessment The Historic South Carolina Floods of October 1–5, 2015 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service Silver Spring, Maryland Cover Photograph: Road Washout at Jackson Creek in Columbia, SC, 2015 Source: WIS TV Columbia, SC ii Service Assessment The Historic South Carolina Floods of October 1–5, 2015 July 2016 National Weather Service John D. Murphy Chief Operating Officer iii Preface The combination of a surface low-pressure system located along a stationary frontal boundary off the U.S. Southeast coast, a slow moving upper low to the west, and a persistent plume of tropical moisture associated with Hurricane Joaquin resulted in record rainfall over portions of South Carolina, October 1–5, 2015. Some areas experienced more than 20 inches of rainfall over the 5-day period. Many locations recorded rainfall rates of 2 inches per hour. This rainfall occurred over urban areas where runoff rates are high and on grounds already wet from recent rains. Widespread, heavy rainfall caused major flooding in areas from the central part of South Carolina to the coast. The historic rainfall resulted in moderate to major river flooding across South Carolina with at least 20 locations exceeding the established flood stages. Flooding from this event resulted in 19 fatalities. Nine of these fatalities occurred in Richland County, which includes the main urban center of Columbia. South Carolina State Officials said damage losses were $1.492 billion. Because of the significant impacts of the event, the National Weather Service formed a service assessment team to evaluate its performance before and during the record flooding.
    [Show full text]
  • Technical Memorandum
    Technical Memorandum To: South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (DNR) South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) From: CDM Smith Date: January 2015 Subject: Methodology for Unimpaired Flow Development Saluda River Basin, South Carolina (Prepared as part of the South Carolina Surface Water Quantity Modeling Program) 1.0 Background and Objectives for Unimpaired Flows Unimpaired Flow (UIF) describes the natural hydrology of a river basin. UIFs quantify streamflows throughout a river basin in the absence of human intervention in the river channel, such as storage, withdrawals, discharges, and return flows. From this basis, modeling and decision making can be compared with pristine conditions. This memorandum explains the methods that will be employed to develop UIFs for South Carolina’s Saluda River basin. It describes data needs, methods for filling data gaps, and issues specific to the Saluda River basin. Once developed, UIFs will be input to the Simplified Water Allocation Model (SWAM) to evaluate surface water hydrology and operations throughout the basin. The UIFs for the Saluda Basin will extend from 1925-2013. UIFs will serve two purposes: ° UIFs will be the fundamental input to the model at headwater nodes and tributary nodes upstream of historic management activity, representing naturally occurring water in the riverways. Current and future management practices such as storage, withdrawals, and discharges will be superimposed on the UIFs. ° UIFs will provide a comparative basis for model results. The impacts of current and future management practices on flow throughout the river network can be compared to the natural conditions represented by the UIFs, and decisions about relative impacts can be well informed.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Notes South Carolina Electric & Gas Company
    MEETING NOTES SOUTH CAROLINA ELECTRIC & GAS COMPANY SALUDA HYDRO PROJECT RELICENSING SAFETY RCG MEETING SCE&G Carolina Research Park Facility April 9, 2008 final acg 8/11/08 ATTENDEES: Alison Guth, Kleinschmidt Associates Dave Anderson, Kleinschmidt Associates Randy Mahan, SCANA Services, Inc. David Price, LMPS Bill Argentieri, SCE&G Mike Waddell, TU Jay Schabacher, LMA Bill Marshall, LSSRAC, SCDNR Alan Stuart, Kleinschmidt Associates Dick Christie, DNR Joy Downs, LMA Jim Devereaux, SCE&G Jim Cumberland, CCL Suzanne Rhodes, SCWF Karen Kustafik, City of Cola Parks & Rec Bret Hoffman, Kleinschmidt Associates MEETING NOTES: These notes serve as summary of the major points presented during the meeting and are not intended to be a transcript or analysis of the meeting. Bill opened the meeting and introduced Jim Devereaux who would be presenting at the meeting (presentation available at http://www.saludahydrorelicense.com/documents/SafetyRCG4-9-08.pdf ). Bill explained that Jim D has been working on the siren system and seeking advice from Karen Kustafik for the locations of the proposed sirens. It was noted that the purpose of the presentation would be to describe the existing and future warning system. Jim D. began the presentation and explained the background behind the warning system. He noted that in order to warn against rising water levels, there was a warning system that consisted of sirens, strobe lights, and a combination of the two. Jim D. also explained that the output level of the sirens was 12 decibels over ambient sound (routine background noise, including minimum flows) and sound levels were adjusted by direct measurement at each siren location.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 Janu
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 4 ATLANTA FEDERAL CENTER 61 FORSYTH STREET ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 January 24, 2002 Mr. Alton C. Boozer, Chief Bureau of Water South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 2600 Bull Street Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708 SUBJECT: Intention to Delist Pollutants from 2000 § 303(d) List Dear Mr. Boozer: This is to acknowledge receipt of your December 17, 2001 request that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review proposed § 303(d) list modifications that are intended by the State of South Carolina. EPA Region 4 has completed its review of the provided information and offers the following findings of its review. As you are aware, 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 130.7(b)(1) requires the State to identify water quality limited segments still requiring total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), i.e., the § 303(d) list. Title 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(4) requires the identification of pollutants causing or expected to cause violations of the applicable water quality standards. Title 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)(6)(iv) allows the State to not include a water on the § 303(d) list if good cause for that decision can be demonstrated. Good cause includes, but is not limited to, more recent or accurate data; more sophisticated water quality modeling; flaws in the original analysis that led to the water being listed; or changes in conditions, e.g., new control equipment or elimination of discharges. The South Carolina Bureau of Water (the Bureau) intends to delist
    [Show full text]
  • Microbial Source Tracking to Assess Human Contributions of Fecal Bacteria to a Freshwater Receiving Stream D
    Microbial Source Tracking to Assess Human Contributions of Fecal Bacteria to a Freshwater Receiving Stream D. A. Graves1, D. E. Chestnut1, E. B. Rabon1, W. J. Jones2, J. G. Moore3, C. Johnston3, C. K. West1 1South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, Bureau of Water, 2University of South Carolina, Selah Genomics Facility, 3NOAA, National Ocean Service, Center for Coastal Environmental Health and Biomolecular Research Bacterial Community Structure Abstract Methodology (cont.) Bacterial indicators of human sources Northern Tributaries Percent Abundance PCR Amplification and Sample Pooling Northern Tributaries 2012 The State of South Carolina, Department of Health and Environmental Control 2012-07 2012-08 2012-09 2012-07 2012-08 2012-09 • The forward primer contained the 454 Life Sciences primer B, the broadly (SCDHEC) is charged with the responsibility to ensure that waters of the State support 1.00 conserved bacterial primer 27F, and a 2-base linker sequence (“TC”). classified uses and are free from pollutants in excess of State standards. Crucial to any • The reverse primer contained the 454 Life Sciences primer A, the bacterial primer Rank2 plan to achieve compliance with E. coli standards is an understanding of the probable p__Acidobacteria 338R, a “CA” inserted as a linker between the barcode and the rRNA primer, and a 100,000 p__Actinobacteria sources of fecal bacteria (i.e., human vs. animal). unique 12-bp error-correcting Golay barcode used to tag each PCR product PCRs 50,000 0.75 p__Armatimonadetes p__Bacteroidetes consisted of 0.25 μL (30 μM) of each forward and reverse primer, 3 μL of template 20,000 p__Chlorobi DNA, and 22.5 μL of Platinum PCR SuperMix (Invitrogen).
    [Show full text]
  • Channel Geomorphology Along the Fluvial- Tidal Transition, Santee River, USA
    Fluvial-tidal transition channel Channel geomorphology along the fluvial- tidal transition, Santee River, USA Raymond Torres† Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of South Carolina, 701 Sumter Street, EWS617, Columbia, South Carolina 29208, USA ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION Pittaluga et al., 2015). Since terrestrial runoff, tidal forcing, and storm surge vary with time, There exists a rich understanding of chan- Along the river continuum, a single channel the tidal effects on channel form vary along the nel forms and processes for rivers with uni- can transition from fluvial to tidal dominance in channel (Wright et al., 1973; Dalrymple and directional flows, and for their estuarine flow and sedimentary processes, and in benthic Choi, 2007). For instance, river flow responses components with bidirectional flows. On the ecology (Dalrymple and Choi, 2007; Jablon- to tidal oscillations can vary temporally with lo- other hand, complementary insight on the ski and Dalrymple, 2016). In particular, many cal weather effects (<day), dam releases (days), transitional reach linking these flows has not coastal river systems experience the combined terrestrial flood waves (weeks), seasonal effects been well developed. This study highlights influence of terrestrial runoff processes and ma- (months), or changes in climate (decades). The analyses of high-resolution, high-accuracy rine storms and tides (e.g., Wright et al., 1973; way in which these conditions translate to tide- bathymetric surveys along a coastal plain Bokuniewicz, 1995; Ensign et al., 2013; Sassi influenced channel geomorphology remains river at 30–94 km upstream of the estuary and Hoitink, 2013), giving rise to at-a-station largely unexplored (Phillips and Slattery, 2007; mouth.
    [Show full text]
  • Things to See and Do in the Saluda-Reedy Watershed
    Things to See and Do in the Saluda-Reedy Watershed 1 Saluda Reservoir 2 Jones Gap State Park 8 Piedmont Mill and Dam 9 Cedar Falls As part of the Greenville Water System, this 547 Here the Middle Saluda River flows from its headwaters down Native Americans called this place “Big Shoals In earlier years, these picturesque falls on the acre lake on the North Saluda River provides many this 2,000 acre valley in the northern Greenville County mountains. of the Saluda,” and settlers later named it Reedy River were an important commercial asset Greenville County residents with fresh, clean Some 400 species of plants call the park home, including a number Garrison Shoals and finally Piedmont. Henry to the region. This was the site of a grist mill, drinking water. of rare and endangered species. The Park offers a learning center, Pinckney Hammond built the first cotton mill saw mill, dam and power generating plant that natural camp sites and a paradise for trout anglers. on the Saluda River here in 1848. provided operating power for the textile mill at Fork Shoals. Now the falls is one of the most beautiful natural features on the lower Reedy. 3 Table Rock Reservoir This lake on the South Saluda River was built in 1925 to provide drinking 10 Pelzer Mill and Dam 11 Tumblin Shoals water to the Greenville Water System. Its protected watershed is an ecological treasure, with remnant old-growth forest and large populations of species In 1880 Ellison Adger Smyth and Francis J. In the 1830s, a store, ginnery, saw mill and flour that are rare elsewhere.
    [Show full text]
  • Maroon and Slave Communities in South Carolina Before 1865
    MAROON AND SLAVE COMMUNITIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA BEFORE 1865 TIM LOCKLEY AND DAVID DODDINGTON* IN THE PAST SEVERAL DECADES, REVISIONS TO LONG-STANDING EQPEGRVUQHőEQOOWPKV[ŒJCXGRNC[GFCUKIPKſECPVTQNGKPGPTKEJKPIQWT WPFGTUVCPFKPIQHVJGEQORNGZKV[QHGPUNCXGFNKHGKP0QTVJ#OGTKEC(GY JKUVQTKCPUUWIIGUVCP[OQTGVJCVGPUNCXGFRGQRNGYGTGKPGZQTCDN[DQWPF VQIGVJGTD[UJCTGFQRRTGUUKQPCPFYQTMQPVQRKEUCUFKXGTUGCUVJGKPHQTOCN GEQPQO[HCOKN[NKHGEQWTVUJKRCPFJQPQTJCXGGHHGEVKXGN[EQODKPGFVQ TGHWVGVJGO[VJQHCPőKF[NNKEUNCXGEQOOWPKV[ŒVJCV2GVGT-QNEJKPYCTPGF YCUCVTKUMQHFGXGNQRKPIHTQOTGXKUKQPKUVJKUVQTKGU16JGTGJCUDGGPITGCVGT HQEWUQPVGORQTCNCPFIGQITCRJKECNFKHHGTGPEGUKPGPUNCXGOGPVCUYGNNCU VJGURCVKCNFKUVKPEVKQPUCVRNC[KPGXGT[FC[NKHGOGVJQFQNQIKECNETKVKSWGU UWEJCU#PVJQP[-C[GŏUJCXGUVTGUUGFVJGPGGFVQTGHQTOWNCVGF[PCOKEU QHGZENWUKQPCPFKPENWUKQPVJTQWIJOQTGRTCEVKECNIGQITCRJKECNURGEKſEU2 +PNKIJVQHUWEJUEJQNCTUJKRJKUVQTKCPUPQYGORJCUK\GVJGPWCPEGFƀGZ- KDNGCPFF[PCOKETGNCVKQPUJKRUCVVJGJGCTVQHőOWNVKRNGUNCXGEQOOWPKVKGU EQPVKPWCNN[KPƀWZCPFKPJCDKVGFD[TGCNRGQRNGŒ3+PCTGEGPVJKUVQTKQITCRJK- ECNUWOOCT[,GHH(QTTGVEQPENWFGUVJCVőCP[TQOCPVKEK\CVKQPQHVJGUNCXG EQOOWPKV[KUTCRKFN[FTCYKPIVQCENQUGŒ4 /WEJQHVJGNCVGUVUEJQNCTN[YQTMEQPEGPVTCVGUKPUVGCFQPUNCXGEQP- ƀKEVTGCUQPCDN[TGOKPFKPIWUVJCVKP&[NCP2GPPKPITQVJŏUYQTFUőVJGTG KUPQTGCUQPVQVJKPMVJCVVJGDNCEMEQOOWPKV[KPVJGUYCUCP[OQTG JCTOQPKQWUVJCPVJGYJKVGEQOOWPKV[Œ5+VKUVJKUDQF[QHNKVGTCVWTGVJCV VJGRTGUGPVCTVKENGJQRGUVQDWKNFQPRCTVKEWNCTN[YKVJTGICTFUVQGZRNQTKPI 6KO.QEMNG[KUTGCFGTKPEQORCTCVKXG#OGTKECPUVWFKGUCVVJG7PKXGTUKV[QH 9CTYKEM &CXKF&QFFKPIVQPKUCFQEVQTCNECPFKFCVGKPJKUVQT[CVVJG7PKXGTUKV[
    [Show full text]